A view of Whitby Abbey framed by a whalebone arch under a cloudy sky, showcasing historical architecture in North Yorkshire, England.Sometimes, when a storm hits the UK, rain batters the pavements and wind whips the trees, it's easy to feel swept up in the kind of awe-inspiring conditions that helped Emily Brontë to write her classic novel, Wuthering Heights.There is a little town in Yorkshire, 100miles from Cathy and Heathcliff's home, but steeped in as much Gothic drama, where every day feels like you've tumbled into such dark Victorian melodrama. (...)If you walk along the coast from the nearby villages of Saltmoore and Sandsend, the gothic ruins stay within your sightline. Lucky hikers will get to see the sea fog - which locals used to believe was the fiery breath of a dragon - come in to cover the abbey. You'll feel like you're trekking the same paths Heathcliff did as he searched for Catherine's ghost, not least because Emerald Fennell's new film was shot about two hours away, in the Yorkshire Dales. (...)The most remarkable sight comes when you walk back towards Whitby, as when the fog clears, the Abbey can be seen looming through a gap between the cliffs. It's terrifying and awe-inspiring all at once. I felt drawn towards the ruins, much as Cathy is drawn to Heathcliff or as an entranced Lucy is drawn to Dracula. How could anyone resist such a terrible sight? (Yasmin Vince)
I was advised to visit Hill Garden and I’m so glad I did. The sun shone down on the terrace, and it was a nice place to sit and gather my thoughts after having walked around for a couple of hours. I’ve been reading Wuthering Heights in preparation for the new movie that’s coming out in a few days, and I couldn’t help but feel like Hill Garden came straight out of a Brontë novel. (Helena Sauriat)
The brutal Brontës! Wuthering Heights author Emily beat up her dog, toothless Charlotte spitefully held back Anne's career and all three died close to their 30th birthdays... not to mention their opium addict brother.
The famous family of writers endured everything from opium addiction to water contaminated by a cemetery, as well as a string of tragically early deaths that saw three out of four siblings - including their only brother, Branwell - deceased within a year of one another, all close to their 30th birthdays.And their precocious beginnings are almost as well documented as their 'spiteful' attitudes, with biographers remarking on the sisters' history with animal abuse, disdain of young children and 'anger management issues'.As revealed by literary critic Claire Harman in Charlotte Brontë: A Life, there was also the matter of the sisters' 'plain' and 'poorly' appearance.According to the writer, Emily had a large protruding tooth, while Charlotte had hardly any teeth at all.Undersized and undernourished, she was described by her fellow novelist, Elizabeth Gaskell, as having a forehead that was 'square, broad and rather overhanging'.Emily, for one, while posted at Law Hill School in Halifax, reportedly said she 'preferred the company of the house dog' over her pupils, as shared by author Juliet Barker.
And while not as combustible as her sister, Charlotte wasn't to be trifled with either. When she taught at a girls' school in Brussels, she gave any student who displeased her a tremendous tongue-lashing.'If those girls knew how I loathed their company, they would not seek mine as much as they do,' she wrote in her journal.In fact, several of her pupils seemed to have loathed her as much as she loathed them - one even threw a stone at her.
Charlotte's family, it seems, were not immune from her criticisms. In an introduction to her sister Anne's second novel, Charlotte shared that 'Wildfell Hall it hardly appears to me desirable to preserve'.'The choice of subject in that work is a mistake – it was too little consonant with the character – tastes and ideas of the gentle, retiring, inexperienced writer,' she continued.Historians have dubbed the jabs an attempt to 'consign her sister’s novel to oblivion'.Emily's temperament was also well known and has been a topic of discussion for historians - despite claims that Charlotte had tried to 'clean up' her sister's image posthumously.
Sex-mad doggers are romping in the countryside that inspired Wuthering HeightsAs new raunchy film version of Wuthering Heights has just hit cinemas randy revellers are getting frisky where the Brontë sisters penned their acclaimed books.And we can reveal that randy revellers are getting frisky where the Brontë sisters penned their acclaimed books. There’s plenty of bodice-ripping action as lust-crazed couples invade the moors around the picturesque parish of Haworth for bawdy al-fresco frolics. (John Ward)
And Jacob reveals there was sizzling chemistry between him and Margot, who plays love-struck Cathy, from the moment they met.He said: “It’s like, ‘Action’ and it’s like a horse at the race track — straight out of the gates.”But he insists that sex scenes are actually “no different to choreo- graphing a fight scene or a dance sequence”, explaining: “It’s super- technical, especially the scene where, it’s not a sex scene, but where I’m on top [of Margot] with my hands — that’s choreographed because, in that kind of light, you only have so much space to move. (Nadia Cohen)
A (Leeds) reader of The Sunday Times defends Jacob Elordi's Yorkshire accent in the film.
Most film adaptations of Wuthering Heights leave half the story untold. And while Emerald Fennell’s steamy adaptation may have caused a surge in sales of Emily Brontë’s novel, it is very much a different creation. The Easy Classics version follows the original far more literally.
However, the true failing of “Wuthering Heights” lies in its unwillingness to offer anything genuinely new. We are, perhaps, well past the cultural moment where explicit sex alone can pass for provocation. The shock value has dulled, and what remains feels curiously dated. The omission of the novel’s second half, a section frequently sacrificed in screen adaptations of Wuthering Heights, further positions this film as just another iteration: more polished, glamorous and decidedly raunchier than its predecessors, yet reluctant to meaningfully reinterpret its source material. The whirlwind sexual crescendo ultimately achieves little. Cathy’s fate is preordained and her death carries no tragic inevitability when the emotional groundwork has been hollowed out.Gothic literature thrives on transgression and repression: on the past’s refusal to remain buried. Strip away those tensions, and what remains is superficial. Here, the Gothic is reduced to aesthetic texture: wind-swept moors, crimson palettes, feverish bodies, a dark synth-pop soundtrack. Its spirit—moral rot, psychological cruelty, generational obsession—is conspicuously, and regrettably, absent. In the end, while “Wuthering Heights” may dazzle the eye, it hollowly fails to evoke Brontë’s corrosive psychological and social commentary in favour of lavish spectacle, sexualised shock, and aestheticised cruelty. (Hannah Tang in Strand Magazine)
I am a deeply proud Northern lass, and not many media pieces ever acknowledge our little corner of the world. Emily Brontë and her sisters were deeply inspired by the Moors in which they resided. It influenced their writing and greatly impacted their local community for what is now well over the past 170 years. It saddens me that Emily’s deeply intelligent work is being passed off as what is essentially explicit fanfiction (seriously, what was up with kneading the bread?) If this piece wins any awards, I will be questioning Hollywood’s, obviously declining, sanity. (Lily Orton in HerCampus)
Does all this contemporary hindsight into the fabric of Brontë’s epic novel make for a quintessential “Wuthering Heights?” Even allowing that such a thing were possible, probably not. While it presents a stylishly crafted and thrillingly cinematic take on this complex classic, richly enhanced by a superb and adventurous cast, it’s not likely to satisfy anyone looking for a faithful rendition, nor does it reveal a new angle from which the “romance” at its center looks anything other than toxic — indeed, it almost fetishizes the dysfunction. Even without the thorny debate around Heathcliff’s racial identity, there’s plenty here to prompt purists and revisionists alike to find fault with Fennell’s approach.Yet for those looking for a new window into to this perennial classic, and who are comfortable with the radical flourish for which Fennell is already known, it’s an engrossing and intellectually stimulating exploration of this iconic story in a way that exchanges comfortable familiarity for unpredictable chaos — and for cinema fans, that’s more than enough reason to give “Wuthering Heights” a chance. (John Paul King in Los Angeles Blade)
Robbie puts in the worst performance of her career by turning Catherine into a bratty, unbearable hypocrite; meanwhile, Elordi’s script must have only said, ”Stare maniacally”.The film also struggles with its presentation. So much of it feels like a scene from Alice in Wonderland, but without the charm. It’s drab and gross.Even the scenes in Edgar Linton’s mansion, which is supposed to be a grander-than-life setting, have an unsettling, unnatural sheen. It’s like the entire film was shot on a stage, but instead of sets, the film chooses to have a nasty greenscreen backdrop.Funnell committed a terrible practical joke by releasing this film on the weekend of Valentine’s Day. Every couple expecting an intimate, romantic depiction of a famous novel will instead be subjected to a cruel and unusual parody.The film is a miserable experience and is the first truly horrible movie of 2026.Wuthering Heights is showing in cinemas around the country. (Jarryd Rowley in Region)
Then again, maybe Fennell is just having a laugh at our expense. If you want to watch a spiritually faithful adaptation of Wuthering Heights, complete with sexually charged graveyard visits, a decades-long real estate scheme, and uh, yearning in spades, Saltburn is already that movie. It’s hard not to suspect that Fennell, in her clever and cynical way, just wanted to see if she could get away with turning fantasy casting plucked from the recesses of Tumblr into a major motion picture. Because the only other explanation I can conjure for the gooey mess that is “Wuthering Heights” is that Fennell doesn’t realize her promising artistic vision has been cuckooed by something all too ordinary instead. (Nicole Penn in The Dispatch)
The film "Wuthering Heights" is an anti-love story that goes for visual feast and shock factor with the way the characters fulfilled their sexual fantasies rather than an exploration of a fierce love that defies class and convention. (Rachelle Siazon in Philippine Entertainment Portal)
“Cumbres borrascosas”, el libro, el clásico, no se parece a nada porque lleva los vínculos al límite.Heathcliff no es un héroe trágico: es la violencia que una sociedad ejerce sobre él y la que él mismo reproduce, implacable. Catherine queda atrapada entre su deseo y la necesidad de encajar en un orden que la asfixia-Por eso el libro sigue ahí, embrujándonos a todos, y mucho más arriesgado que esta adaptación que le baja el voltaje y la convierte en una versión vistosa, hot y descremada. (Verónica Bonacchi in Diario Rio Negro) (Translation)
Brontë no buscaba la perfección romántica; creó un universo de pasión desmedida, de frustración y de tormento. Un amor áspero, inquietante, que deja el alma en desasosiego. La película, en cambio, parece desconfiar de la inteligencia del espectador, como si fuera necesario subrayarlo todo, explicarlo todo, hacerlo más evidente —incluso a través de escenas prescindibles— para garantizar su comprensión.El final, además, da la impresión de cerrar definitivamente la puerta a la continuación de la historia, como si la segunda generación nunca hubiera existido.En conclusión, si deseas disfrutar plenamente de la película, quizá sea mejor no haber leído la novela. Pero si lo que buscas es comprender la intensidad, la oscuridad y la complejidad del amor que imaginó Emily Brontë, entonces acude al libro… y no esperes demasiado de la película. (María Beatriz Muñoz Ruiz in Diario Sabemos) (Translation)
El resultado es una película que traiciona el espíritu del libro en nombre de una supuesta autenticidad. Porque el corazón de Cumbres borrascosas no es el sexo; es la imposibilidad. Es la herida abierta de un amor que no encuentra lugar en el mundo. Es el resentimiento que fermenta durante años. Es la crueldad que nace del abandono. La novela es violenta, pero su violencia es moral, psicológica, casi metafísica. Aquí, en cambio, la violencia se sexualiza. El dolor se erotiza. Y el espectador asiste a una saturación de escenas íntimas que no construyen personaje ni conflicto: solo ocupan tiempo.Y, sin embargo, la película ofrece una paradoja que la redime parcialmente. En su tramo final, cuando el frenesí carnal se agota y los cuerpos dejan de ocupar el centro del encuadre, algo cambia. De repente, el silencio vuelve a tener peso. Las palabras, esas grandes ausentes durante buena parte del metraje, recuperan su lugar. Los personajes hablan, se enfrentan, se reprochan, se reconocen. Y entonces, casi milagrosamente, la película encuentra la profundidad que había estado buscando a golpes de piel.Es en ese último acto -cuando el deseo ya no se expresa en sudor sino en diálogo- donde asoma la grandeza que el conjunto prometía. Las miradas pesan más que los cuerpos. Las frases hieren más que cualquier escena explícita. El dolor se verbaliza y, al hacerlo, adquiere una dimensión trágica que conecta, por fin, con el espíritu de la novela. Resulta irónico que la adaptación alcance su mejor momento precisamente cuando renuncia a su estrategia más insistente. (Amanda Ramos in El Plural) (Translation)
Una adaptación es una lectura, y las lecturas se definen no sólo por lo que se conserva del original, sino por lo que se elimina. Esa chica de 14 años, si le creemos a Fennell, quería más sexo, y por qué no. Cathy y Heathcliff se lo merecen. Pero hay muchas otras cosas que llevan al infierno en Cumbres Borrascosas, y acá es donde aparecen los lectores con el texto en la mano, porque esas otras cosas son esenciales y no están en la película, ni en texto ni en subtexto.Fennell decide que Heathcliff no sea un abusador, un golpeador y un hombre cruel. ¿Por qué? Heathcliff, de origen incierto, es una víctima de abusos, está tan dañado que se transformó en un monstruo vengativo y solo se hizo rico para destruir a quienes lo rechazaron, maltrataron, degradaron y aislaron. El Heathcliff de Fennell recibe una paliza, pide permiso hasta para besar y jamás resulta peligroso. ¿Por qué llamarlo Heathcliff, entonces? ¿Si no se suicida, es Ofelia la de Hamlet? Fennell también cambia a la esposa de Heathcliff, Isabella, que en la película tiene una relación sadomasoquista con él, más o menos consentida, y chistosa. Elegir como alivio cómico a una mujer en cuatro patas, atada a la chimenea de lo caliente que está con Jacob Elordi es una provocación, por supuesto. Pero resulta que en la novela, esa mujer, después de ser golpeada, y (seguro) violada y encerrada, logra escapar con siete meses de embarazo y tira su anillo a la chimenea de marras, y esto en 1847, cuando la esposa era propiedad del marido. Es muy radical. ¿Por qué convertirla en alguien de quien reírse?Los ejemplos pueden seguir, pero la decisión es clara: la tragedia está aplanada y sustituida por la historia de dos enamorados pasionales separados por las circunstancias y enloquecidos de deseo. En la novela, Heathcliff no vuelve en plan recuperar a su amada, regresa como una tormenta de odio que condensa y perpetúa toda la injusticia social que provocó su daño irreversible. No es cuestión de purismo.(...)A veces, ser ligero y provocador es un alivio, es frescura y fiesta, una forma de desafío al poder. Y otras veces, como en estas Cumbres borrascosas, esa ligereza resulta hueca y reaccionaria. (Translation)
La visione di Fennell, innegabilmente personale, piena di gusto per l’iperbole e di forte intensità visiva, si scontra in definitiva con ciò che rende 'Cime tempestose' un classico: la sua capacità di trasformare dolore e desiderio in un’esperienza narrativa che non si esaurisce nello sguardo ma scava nelle viscere del lettore. Così alla fine, uscendo dalla sala, resta la sensazione di aver assistito a qualcosa di intenso ma incompleto. Come se il film avesse scelto di incarnare la tempesta, rinunciando deliberatamente a mostrarci le sue conseguenze. (Dario Vassallo in PrimoCanale) (Translation)
The best -known adaptation (until this year) is probably the 1939 film with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon – although AIP tried their luck with Timothy Dalton in 1970, and Cliff Richard did a musical Heathcliff, and there was a very respected 1953 BBC television version starring Richard Todd from a script by Nigel (Quatermass Experiment) Kneale. In fact, that BBC version was so respected that in 1959 the ABC decided “wow let’s use 1700 pounds to shoot this script even though it would be cheaper just to import a kinescope of the BBC production and we could have spent the rest of the funds on shooting a something local.” Incidentally, the BBC filmed Kneale’s script again in 1962 with Claire Bloom and Australia’s own Keith Michell in the leads – so, even if Kneale wrote it very hastily, by his own admission, he did pretty well out of it.We’ll be upfront – we haven’t seen the 1959 ABC TV film of Wuthering Heights. It’s entirely possible that no copy survives – but we’ve read a lot about it and reproduce what knowledge we’ve ascertained below. (...)The driving force behind the production was director Alan Burke, who specifically asked to do it. Burke was a competent director and from all accounts a very nice man, but like many Australian directors of his time (and now) he really wanted to be directing foreign scripts rather than local ones. (...)Burke’s production of Wuthering Heights starred deejay Lew Luton as Heathcliff, Delia Williams as Cathy, Annette Andre as Isabella, and Richard Davies as Hindley. It was shot in Sydney and was mostly done live with some prerecorded segments. (Read more) (Stephen Vagg)
Jane Eyre 2011If you’re looking to put more of the psychological in psychological romance, this movie should do it. It’s what Fennell’s movie should have had, with more book accuracy and a weird plot twist. (Hannah Trimble)
Ragioni e sentimenti - radici dei classici e narrazione contemporanea - è il tema di “Incontri d’Autore”, la trasmissione coordinata da Francesca Cosentino, a cura della redazione Cultura e Spettacoli del Giornale Radio Rai, in onda domenica 22 febbraio su Rai Radio1 alle 00.40, per parlare di libri, di letteratura e di tutto quanto ci gira intorno. (...) Natalia Augias racconta della biografia di Charlotte Bronte scritta da Eleonor Houghton. Classici e cinema, le tante versioni di "Cime tempestose” - il servizio è di Baba Richerme. (Translation)
The Brussels Brontë Blog posts a summary of a recent talk by Jones Hayden, who set out to prove that the Brontë sisters had a genuine sense of humour, drawing on comic moments, witty character names, and laugh-out-loud exchanges from across their novels.
- Never Leave Eau de Parfum – A TokyoMilk fine fragrance inspired by Wuthering Heights themes, designed as a moody, romantic perfume.
- Be With Me Always Eau de Parfum – Another TokyoMilk perfume, created to evoke enduring, passionate love and literary drama.
- Drive Me Mad Eau de Parfum – A TokyoMilk scent with a more intense, tempestuous character, echoing the novel’s darker emotions.
- Come Undone Eau de Parfum – A TokyoMilk fragrance meant to feel emotional and unraveled, matching the book’s tragic tone.
- Dead Sexy Eau de Parfum (“Wuthering Heights” edition) – A special TokyoMilk version of the existing Dead Sexy scent, elevated and priced as a more luxurious perfume.
- Kiss Me Again Bathing Salts & Bubble Bath Duo – Lollia set that pairs scented bath salts and bubble bath for a full, romantic soak ritual.
- Kiss Me Again Bubble Bath – Lollia bubble bath in decorative packaging, for a fragrant, bookish tub experience.
- Kiss Me Again Bathing Salts – Lollia bath salts to sprinkle in the bath, adding scent and a spa-like feel.
- Wish Eau de Parfum (“Wuthering Heights” edition) – Lollia perfume in the classic sweet “Wish” scent, reimagined in Wuthering Heights–themed packaging.
- Wish Bubbling Bath – Lollia bubbling bath with the same “Wish” fragrance, for a scented, foaming bath.
- Wish Luminary – A Lollia candle in the “Wish” scent, adding a warm, atmospheric glow while you read.
- Wish Handcreme & Key – A Lollia hand cream in the “Wish” fragrance with a decorative key charm, meant as a small daily luxury or gift.
- Petite Treat Handcreme Discovery Set – A Lollia mini hand cream set featuring several scents, including ones tied into the collection, so you can sample multiple fragrances.
After Dark: Myths, Misdeeds & the ParanormalWuthering Heights, written by Emily Brontë in 1847, depicts a gothic world full of violence and passion, set against the wild Yorkshire Moors.So how did the daughter of a clergyman create such a story? How was it received at the time? And what darkness and intrigue happened in the Brontê's lives that could have influenced such stories?With a new Wuthering Heights film being released, Anthony and Maddy are exploring that world with you in today's episode.It’s one of relentless death and tragedy, wild creativity, and supernatural belief, all to the backdrop of an industrial Victorian England.If you're interested to find out more, you can watch the documentary Death at the Parsonage: The Brontês, on HistoryHit.com.This episode was edited and produced by Stuart Beckwith. The senior producer was Freddy Chick.
I have two theories: one, I think people have strong negative opinions about its director, whom they see as privileged and chronically off-key when it comes to stories that contend with class; and two, I think people firmly made up their minds about it before they saw it and I think this because everyone keeps accusing Fennell of turning this beloved piece of gothic lit a “horned-up bodice ripper” even though all the sex scenes are fully clothed.Also, I am pretty sure the marketing of “Wuthering Heights” as “the greatest love story of all time” is tongue firmly in cheek. As in the book, the relationships are toxic and you’ll hate everyone in this movie.I keep encountering (not incorrect) criticism that this rich text has been taken and dumbed down; there is a lot that has been left out, including the second half of the book, and that has left people wanting. I saw one critic call it anti-intellectual. (Jen Zoratti in Winnipeg Free Press)
Sin embargo, me pareció realmente frustrante que la película parezca detenerse justo antes del abismo. Coquetea con el melodrama criminal, incluso con el horror, pero finalmente regresa al terreno de la tragedia clásica. Después de alejarse tanto del espíritu de Brontë, me quedé con la sensación de que pudo haber ido todavía más lejos y convertirse en algo completamente nuevo, más retorcido y, quizá, más memorable. Pensaba que ya que se alejaba tanto del material original, merecería la pena, pero me ha dejado con ganas de más. (Belén Prieto in Espinof) (Translation)
Por supuesto que no todas las películas ni ninguna forma de arte está obligada a “decir algo”, bajar un mensaje, una idea o una filosofía. Su único objetivo puede ser entretener y contar una buena historia, del género que sea. Pero si ni siquiera se puede encontrar eso, es una decepción.Quizás por eso, el personaje de Nelly en esta versión de Cumbres borrascosas sea de los más fuertes. Cuando en un punto del relato el personaje quiere que todo lo que está sucediendo entre Heathcliff y Catherine termine de una buena vez y frustrada, hace todo lo que puede para cortar el vínculo, es difícil no sentirse identificado. (Nicolás Tabárez in El Observador) (Translation)
Bad films are one thing, but to introduce an entire generation to Brontë’s brilliant novel with this nonsense is a travesty. The only redeeming feature in the whole sorry affair is the score by Charlie XCX. Mesmerising and discordant, it alone reflects the novel’s mood, with a darkness that should have been swirling across the moors into Cathy and Heathcliff’s blood. Unfortunately for the film-goer this mood remains confined to the music. Perhaps if Fennell had followed the example of Kate Bush and condensed her movie into a three-minute music video, she may have been more successful. (Lucy Nichols in Counterfire)
In the film, though, Heathcliff is white. And worse, the two main impediments to the romance plot are people of color. Instead of a story about the brutalizing force of racism, Fennell gives us a story about how an effete Asian man (Edgar Linton, played by Shazad Latif) and a scheming Asian woman (Nelly Dean, played by Hong Chau) separate the destined white lovers.I doubt this is exactly what Fennell meant to say. But Heathcliff’s skin color is very apparent in the book and has certainly been much discussed in academic and pop culture criticism. A director smart enough to understand and respond to so many of the film’s themes could have, and should have, engaged with its racial aspects as well. The fact that she didn’t mars the film irreparably. (Noah Bertlatsky in Chicago Reader)
This book was quite literally shaved down to bits and pieces, appealing to the mass media. To do that, this movie becomes overtly sexual, simple in concept, and purely aesthetic.Don’t get me wrong, the soundtrack is good, and the cinematography is beautiful. But this isn’t ‘Wuthering Heights’.Every time this movie is called that, I feel Emily Brontë roll over in her grave. (Ronin Vasquez in HerCampus)
However, I truly cannot shake the feeling that Fennell clung to Brontë's ‘Wuthering Heights’ as an excuse to use the beautiful backdrops of Yorkshire and the complex, twisted love story of Cathy and Heathcliff to create something nicely wrapped in time for Valentine's Day.I think if it had been its own movie - inspired by but not dictated by - the title and story of Wuthering Heights, it could have been an excellent watch. It didn't need to be an adaptation of Brontë's book; therefore, it didn't need to split characters into civilised and uncivilised purely by accent. It didn't really need to be set in Yorkshire at all. (Lyra Auld in Yorkshire Live)
Never before now have I felt so uncomfortable during the process of watching a movie, but I would be remiss not to mention the film’s limited redeeming qualities. The cinematography, much like Fennell’s other works, is impressive on occasion. The soundtrack of “Wuthering Heights,” produced by artist Charli xcx, is listenable in a vacuum, though its poor placement within the movie often acts to the scene’s tonal detriment.1/5 – If looking for a good romance, a good adaptation or a good film, look elsewhere.I could not recommend this film under any circumstances. Especially if you happen to be a fan of Emily Brontë’s novel, stay away by all means. There are far better romances, and far better films in theaters currently. (Foster Mayhall in The Auburn Plainsman)
If you hold any kind of literary purity, then “Wuthering Heights” is not for you. But we don’t need another stuffy adaptation of a 19th century gothic romance, and it’s much better and more accessible to have what Fennell gives: a modernized feminist remix of Brontë’s classic that incorporates modern sexual sensibility into the classic story.Fennell, whose previous work includes Promising Young Woman (2020) and Saltburn (2023), seems to think that subtlety is for cowards, and while that approach would not work for a typical Wuthering Heights adaptation, it certainly works for this one. “Wuthering Heights” is so trashy it almost becomes goofy, but for the audience it’s aiming for and for its commitment to the tone it’s striking, it is very good trash. (Jim Hunter in Tristate Homepage)
It's a "spectacle" of the highest order, but beneath the gorgeous gowns and the "bodice-ripping" sex scenes, some might find the heart of the story has been traded for pure, unadulterated "ragebait" provocation.Is it a masterpiece? Probably not. Is it a "must-watch" cinematic event that will have everyone talking at the water cooler on Monday? Absolutely.Fennell has crafted a "Wuthering Heights" for the Instagram generation: high on atmosphere, drenched in desire, and utterly unapologetic about its own excesses. (New Straits Times)
There are a number of elements that make Bronte’s novel a commanding literary presence. It’s about personal trauma, spousal cheating, paternal abuse, jealousy, violence, anger, and outcasts from a society that believes in walls between the classes. In the case of the book, one of the walls is bleak and utterly racist. Did Fennell misinterpret the novel? I find that doubtful. The answer is that she is a fearless director who willingly marches to the beat of her own drum. Her talent is prodigious. Ultimately, Fennell’s missteps mean “Wuthering Heights” isn’t compelling enough to wholeheartedly recommend. (Michael Calleri in The Daily Star)
The film's hair and make-up designer Siân Miller, shares her approach to crafting Cathy's looks in Harper's Bazaar. Nine, Chilango recommend reading Jane Eyre if you loved Wuthering Heights. Infobae talks about when Wuthering Heights as published under the pseudonym Ellis Bell...well, the website says Ellis Bay. Fama (México) talks about three of the Mexican telenovelas that adapted (sort of) Wuthering Heights: Encadenados (1988, 180 episodes), Triunfo del Amor (2010, 176 episodes), Lo que la Vida me Robó (2013, 197 episodes. Purewow gives you 'Wuthering Heights'-Inspired Pieces to get Margot Robbie's look.
Andi Zeisler in Salon connects the Gen Z increasing love of yearning with Wuthering Heights:
Generationally, the Zs don’t seem to share much common ground with “Wuthering Heights” author Emily Brontë. But the 1847 novel, her only published work, could be considered the ur-text of yearning. So it makes sense that members of Gen Z are among those most amped for “Saltburn” writer-director Emerald Fennell’s new adaptation of “Wuthering Heights,” which opened just in time, the trailer makes sure to note, for Valentine’s Day. (...)There might even be a case to be made that Emily Brontë herself found yearning preferable to a flesh-and-blood love; it’s definitely one reason why many Brontë fans were salty that 2022’s fictionalized biopic “Emily” retconned the origin story so that Brontë herself had an obsessive love affair. What if this iteration of “Wuthering Heights” exists precisely because it’s comforting to think the happiest ending is made possible by a nonexistent beginning? Would that really be so bad? I don’t think so, but it also doesn’t matter: In times this uncertain, yearning doesn’t have to signal the absence of something real.
In some ways, that Fennell’s Wuthering Heights is this vacuous and one-dimensional feels like progress. Male directors get to make big, unserious epics all the time. (“How many times have you watched Top Gun: Maverick?” I asked my husband last night. “This month?” he replied.) Fennell, whose film made $83 million at the global box office during opening weekend, is at least proving, with sticky aplomb, how starved we as a culture are for romance. Margot Robbie, the movie’s co-star and one of its producers, has shrugged off mixed reviews; she told Vogue Australia, “I believe you should make movies for the people who are going to buy tickets to see the movies. It’s as simple as that. I love working with Emerald because she always prioritizes an emotional experience over a heady idea.” In other words, Wuthering Heights is simply giving the people what they want. And the people are 12.
The movie's official Rotten Tomatoes score has been in free-fall. It debuted in the low-70s, but has now dropped into "rotten" territory for the first time in its run. Wuthering Heights is currently sitting at a 59% score, with a critics' consensus that reads, "Liberally adapting Emily Brontë's classic story with a heavy dose of carnality and chic stylization, Emerald Fennell's Wuthering Heights might not be the stuff of high literature, but it is a visually vibrant pleasure." (...)On the eve of entering its second weekend of release, Wuthering Heights passed the coveted $100 million mark at the worldwide box office. Most impressively, the domestic-to-overseas ratio is quite encouraging; the movie has grossed $45 million stateside and another $68 million from international markets for a cumulative worldwide haul of nearly $120 million. (Rohan Naahar)
Local traders told the Daily Mail how they are drawing up plans for an unprecedented influx of day-trippers and holidaymakers from around the world - which experts estimate will bring in well over one million visitors by the end of the summer.Not everyone seems happy. There are mutterings of 'overtourism' while the village's steep and narrow streets have long been plagued with parking chaos and traffic gridlock.One local historian has also highlighted how some bewildered visitors have shown up assuming the village - which is home to 6,259 residents - is 'not real' believing it to be 'some sort of Disneyland'. (Mark Branagan)
Charli’s 12-track album is haunting and spellbinding. It’s also full of different ways to die because your other half has either left you, might leave you, or has you so dick-drunk and trauma-bonded that you’re spiritually flatlining. I’m obsessed.On every track, I can feel myself transforming into a lovesick British woman on the verge of losing her sanity because she doesn’t have a job, responsibilities, or literally anything else to think about besides this guy. (Complimentary.) So let’s rank the very best ways to die at the hands of your tall, dark, handsome, and equally distressed lover, who ideally has an accent, just as Emily Brontë would have wanted. (Lauren Tousignant in Jezebel)
Coming off the release of her global phenomenon album “Brat”, Charli XCX has returned with a new studio album titled “Wuthering Heights”, named after the Emily Brontë romance novel from 1847. This album also serves as the official soundtrack for the movie starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, which was released this past Friday, February 13th.For fans of Charli’s older music, this is absolutely a different style than her usual hyperpop, club, and dance music, yet it still feels very on-brand for her as an artist.Featuring a very harsh, classical string section in almost every song on the album, this was crafted with the movie's time period heavily in mind, while being sprinkled in with Charli’s usual auto-tune styled vocals, and some occasional echoey, atmospheric sounds. (Nick Myers in Penn State Student Media)
“Jane Eyre” by Charlotte Brontë contains the original 1847 “girl boss.” It is a foundational Gothic novel, but above all, it is a timeless example of a coming of age story.We follow Jane across 20 years of her life, from her time at an oppressive boarding school to ultimate self-discovery. She encounters several obstacles along the way, but consistently prioritizes her freedom. A romance is a major plotline in the novel, but it is always clear that it is primarily Jane’s story as an individual.“Jane Eyre” serves as an inspiring tale of perseverance and growth, encouraging women to choose themselves when necessary. She is a relatable heroine that modern readers will love and get to know deeply. (Alexandra Prettitore)
Mia and Sam are joined by Professor Corinne Fowler. Corinne is an Honorary Professor of Colonialism and Heritage at the University of Leicester and author of Our Island Stories: Country Walks Through Colonial Britain.We chat about the Museum's 2026 exhibition, The Colonial Brontës, which Corinne has co-curated; discussing how Empire influenced the Brontës' writing and the origins of Emily's character Heathcliff...
Late one night, an 18-year-old Kate Bush wrote her song ‘Wuthering Heights’ without having read its namesake novel by Emily Brontë. She hadn’t even seen a full adaptation. Her inspiration came after catching the last few minutes of a 1967 TV version of the book in which Catherine Earnshaw’s ghost begs to be let in at Heathcliff’s window.Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” has a strikingly similar origin. The writer-director has described wanting to make the version of the book she imagined when she read it at age 14. Hence, the scare quotes around the film’s title, and its pointed departures from the text that produced hysteria online before the full-length trailer was even released. The teaser, in particular, painted the film as an erotic-thriller-cum-fairytale: a wet and wild affair with notes of Marie Antoinette, Gone With The Wind and The Handmaiden. And yet, provocation seems to be the whole point. By way of the sensuous imagery, and by playing up the on- and off-screen chemistry of its leads Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, a seemingly never-ending discourse gave way to packed cinemas on opening weekend, and global box-office results.It was clear from the marketing that this film would adopt a bodice-ripper interpretation of the novel, accentuating the romance and the sex with a Mills & Boon-esque poster, and a tagline ("Come undone") that seemed pilfered from Fifty Shades. This came full circle in a scene in which Heathcliff lifts Cathy up by her bodice. That is, until she resists his amorous advances, and he puts her down.The truth is that the film skirts around the hardcore porn-on-the-Moors viewers might have been anticipating. There’s an absence of nudity, and of barbarism beyond what is basically included for laughs. Despite a penchant for murderous dirty talk, Cathy’s love interest is not a callous dom – his most serious crime is being exceptionally horny. Elordi’s Heathcliff tells Cathy what feels like hundreds of times during their encounters how much he loves her. This is not the revenge-poisoned Heathcliff from the novel who cannot be trusted around dogs.While many of us were expecting – or even hoping for – a more brutish Heathcliff, one that reflects the wicked character in the book, it is perhaps no wonder that Fennell chose to keep her hero on the side of the harmless heartthrobs. One of the most appealing aspects of the bodice-ripper genre is that it allows readers to imagine sex, and even cruelty, within a format they control, and on their own terms. In teenage Fennell’s imagination, this barbaric anti-hero is softened, and the choice seems designed to align with the commercial success the film was destined to achieve.Such a loose adaptation style turns the film into fanfiction. It’s a well-calibrated decision, considering the majority of viewers will not have pored over – or even witnessed the last few minutes of a TV version of – the book. This approach is most evident in moments that flauntingly defy reality. The lovers are almost frighteningly alone on the Moors, in the Linton house, in the garden. One is left wondering: where are the other characters, the servants? Where, in fact, is the shame? There is none. Within a fantasy, the pair are able to experience passion, at least for a time, without consequence or interruption.By straying far from the original story, Fennell creates something so original that cinema goers simply cannot agree on what they’ve seen. Some say it "spark[s] a deep lizard-brained pleasure"; many are "disappointed and upset"; the ratings are through the roof. This divisiveness is a feat in itself, especially when today’s criticism scene is defined by the mounting pressure to give every piece of media a simpering, sycophantic review, or else be called out for not letting "people enjoy things". The two women (Robbie and Fennell) at the heart of this controversy are seasoned provocateurs. Indeed, it’s hard to point to any other film in recent years that has generated this much uproar while becoming a zeitgeist-defining, merchandise-selling mega-hit – except, of course, Barbie.Fennell’s film winds you up. It taunts you, baiting and switching until you come away feeling slightly dizzy and slightly foolish. As the motion picture receives a thorough drubbing from critics, one cannot shake the image of a 14-year-old hiding in the wings and laughing uproariously at the fuss she has caused. It’s a form of schadenfreude not just reserved for children; it appears as a through-line in all of Fennell’s works to date, but is most fully realised here. Saltburn, especially, seemed formulated to stir up impassioned post-viewing debate. With “Wuthering Heights” she goes a step further. In choosing a pillar of the literary canon as her source material, Fennell guarantees audiences would be hand-wringing, sweating and clamouring to share their opinions – from the moment of its announcement until weeks after its opening.The heart-stopping visuals complement this teenage dreamworld. Cathy is cloaked in billowing fabrics and gauzy veils, her lower half swallowed by red full-skirted gowns. Heathcliff goes from rugged and sweaty to Mr Darcy, à la Colin Firth, with the face of a boyband member. The two run from and towards one another on a delightfully wild landscape: rolling hills jutted with clusters of expressionistic rocks, perpetually stricken by fog or rain. The Linton home is a doll house of gaucheness and glamour, and all of it glistens on VistaVision film. No expense was spared. The limitless budget reflects the limitless possibilities of a schoolgirl’s imagination.Like Bush, Fennell’s creative power is unrestrained by convention; they both created works that soar in their wide-eyed wonder. Fanfiction, after all, is the way in which most highbrow literature is circulated among the masses, whether through reimagining or lyrical inspiration. Taylor Swift, after all, is responsible for introducing TikTok teens to Dylan Thomas and Hamlet. Fennell’s unabashed style succeeds in making the gruesome act of adapting a work obvious. What others are scared to touch, she rips in half, dousing the remains in a medley of suggestive fluids. And if the box-office numbers are anything to go off, perhaps a bold, brash approach is exactly what cinema needs. (Daniella Parete Clarke)
Some filmmakers work within genre constraints. Others push against them. Still others think hard about how to subvert them. But Fennell does something altogether different and with such glee that even when I feel as if I’m drowning in her excess, I can’t help but love it: She swallows genres whole, like some kind of directorial Kirby, then regurgitates them according to her own vision.The results retain traces of some corner of her subconscious; her exhilarating dream logic always teeters between ecstasy and nightmare. It is heady and feminine and I find it, more often than not, delicious.“Wuthering Heights” fits this mode, even more than her previous two films (“Saltburn” and “Promising Young Woman”), and it embodies what’s singular about her work. In the foreword to a new edition of Emily Brontë’s novel, she writes that Brontë’s book is too slippery to cram into a two-hour movie, and thus “what I have attempted to do is adapt my own experience of reading it for the first time.”And her “Wuthering Heights” is indeed less an adaptation of a classic text than it is an adaptation of a feeling. Somehow it’s very dirty and very chaste at the same time. There is plenty of sex, and yet the maximum amount of nudity allowed is a topless Heathcliff. We understand there are some sadomasochistic goings-on but we, like Cathy, are not allowed to watch, only to listen. Yet all of this may make sense.Imagine yourself a 16-year-old girl, inexperienced, naïve, stumbling across “Wuthering Heights” — the novel, I mean. There’s no one in the world but these characters and their chilly windswept moors, their doll’s house lives filled with misery and longing. You picture these strange places, with their strange names, inhabited by wild, cruel, passionate lovers and lunatics.There’s nothing explicitly sexual, and yet you’re no fool: You can sense an erotic undercurrent. Now imagine, in your daydreams, Brontë’s story begins to mix with the bodice-rippers you sneak from your favorite aunt’s bookshelf. You can’t quite bring yourself to imagine Brontë’s characters in those settings, but snatches of that fantasy snag on your psyche nonetheless.That’s Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights,” and the degree to which you enjoy it may depend on your intimacy with that feeling. This is why I have now come to eagerly anticipate a new Fennell release, even if I still think “Promising Young Woman” was mostly an interesting failure. Her movies have a feverish, obsessive quality, and so do her characters, always getting into a lather over something, doing destructive and gross things to feed their desire.Take the fact that “Wuthering Heights” and “Saltburn” both seem concocted at least in some measure to give her camera an excuse to linger on Jacob Elordi. In each film, his character — Heathcliff, Felix — arranges himself before others in a manner calculated to maximize his appeal, then smirks knowingly. And the people who covet him, who don’t want to but can’t help themselves, are driven mad with desire, willing to risk their dignity to get him for a moment. That kind of thing used to happen in studio movies all the time but is not so easy to find these days. It’s impudent. He’s got you. She’s got you. [...]Then there is “Wuthering Heights,” which boils Brontë’s novel — which is about cruelty and passion, but also class and inheritance and even race — down to what lingers after you read it: Heathcliff’s all-consuming, undeniably physical obsession with Cathy, who returns his ardor. In so doing, Fennell proclaims that this classic you probably read in high-school English is fundamentally a romance for the ages. To overintellectualize it is to do it a disservice. (Alissa Wilkinson)
Wesley Morris, host of “Cannonball,” and Sasha Weiss, the culture editor of The New York Times Magazine, discuss Emerald Fennell’s steamy film adaptation of the novel “Wuthering Heights.”
The debate over Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights has splintered into two factions that ultimately agree on the facts. Fans of the movie think it delivers style over substance in a good way, while detractors think it prioritizes style over substance in a bad one. But while it’s fair to say that Fennell favors flashy sensuality over meaty storytelling, it’s not entirely fair to say there’s no substance to her candy-colored, Charli xcx-soundtracked riff on Emily Brontë’s classic novel. In fact, there’s actually an underappreciated core to Fennell’s loose adaptation. Her Wuthering Heights may market itself as a dark and steamy Valentine’s Day romance, but at its heart it’s actually a story of childhood trauma bonds run amok. [...]This fuels Fennell’s pointed critique of the patriarchal forces that undergird upper-class British nobility in the 18th century. Because a landed man is considered the highest authority, there’s no social or child protective services to call when he’s misusing that power. Instead, his staff and family must simply bend to his various whims and power plays. Wuthering Heights deploys a lot of dollhouse imagery, and Cathy, Heathcliff, and Nelly might as well be dolls Mr. Earnshaw is playing with as he shouts “I am the kindest man alive!” into the void.It’s an idea Brontë explores too, although in a very different place in the novel. In Brontë’s original story, the saga continues on after Cathy’s death with a second generation of characters who find themselves living under Heathcliff’s isolated, abusive thumb. Hindley’s strapping heir, Cathy’s strong-willed daughter, and Heathcliff’s own sickly son are left to build complicated bonds with one another while Heathcliff lures them all to Wuthering Heights and tries his best to emotionally destroy their lives as revenge for his own suffering.While Fennell—like most Wuthering Heights adaptors—cuts that part of the story, she intentionally folds some of its themes into her streamlined adaptation. Though she reimagines Heathcliff as a far kinder, more sympathetic figure than he is in the novel, her dark take on Mr. Earnshaw gets at some of the patriarchal abuse that Brontë is interested in too. It’s like Fennell has collapsed the two generations into her Cathy/Heathcliff/Nelly dynamic, which is a clever way to engage with the novel’s core ideas without adapting its plot beat-for-beat.It’s a shame, then, that after such a strong start, Fennell’s ideas lose steam in the film’s second half. More than anything, Wuthering Heights is a movie about three codependent people who are absolutely terrified of the idea of getting left behind. And Fennell’s exploration of Cathy, Heathcliff, and Nelly’s fraught bond reaches its climax in a scene where Nelly actively manipulates a miscommunication between her “siblings.” In the novel, Heathcliff accidentally overhears Cathy say she could never marry him. In the movie, however, Nelly intentionally provokes Cathy’s confession once she realizes Heathcliff is listening outside the door. She blows up Cathy and Heathcliff’s love, just as she felt her love for Cathy was blown up by Heathcliff.After that, Fennell seems less sure what to do with the themes she’s set up. Once Cathy marries her neighbor Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif) and Heathcliff disappears and returns a rich, dashing man, Wuthering Heights devolves into a style-over-substance fantasia. There are fun montages showing off the over-the-top production design of the Linton family home and some “provocative” adaptation changes—like making Heathcliff’s relationship with Isabella Linton (Alison Oliver) a consensual BDSM one, rather than an abusive marriage. But because Fennell has frontloaded all the interesting emotional drama into the first half of the movie, there’s nowhere for her characters to go as Cathy and Heathcliff finally start consummating their relationship.There are still sharp moments here and there, like when Cathy tells Nelly, “You like to see me cry,” and Nelly counters, “Not half as much as you like crying.” Or the way Cathy responds to her father’s eventual death with both grief and violent relief. Fennell effectively renders her central trio as people too stunted by their childhood traumas to ever really mature into adulthood. But in the rush to make Wuthering Heights a sexy, smutty, earnest romance, Fennell’s spikier themes fall by the wayside. Nelly is positioned as the ultimate tragic antihero, given that her vengeful meddling in Cathy’s life results in Cathy’s death. But the film doesn’t care about the character enough to make that twist land. Instead, Wuthering Heights devolves into a more basic Romeo And Juliet-style tragedy.Still, there’s something to Fennell’s adaptation. In some ways, it’s a soft choice to make Heathcliff a more sympathetic romantic lead rather than the complicated, cruel figure he is in the novel. But given that Brontë ultimately ends with a sense of hope about children being able to break the cycles of abuse set by their parents, amping up Mr. Earnshaw as an antagonist and giving that hopeful arc to Heathcliff instead still (sort of) tracks with what the novel is trying to explore. That alone won’t please the Brontë purists, but it does prove that Fennell’s flexible reimagining is more than its quotation marks. (Caroline Siede)
Following up from it being like a TikTok book adaptation, I resented that it was advertised as a women’s chickflick and I hated the marketing for the movie. For instance, in her appearance at Jimmy Kimmel Live, Robbie talks about arranging a private screening of the movie for her friends, describing them as “frothing at the mouth” for Elordi. This is just crude and tasteless. Another example is the Wuthering Heights lingerie ads that pop up whenever I am on social media. People can enjoy this movie and people can like movies with a little smut, but what I hate is when this is just associated with women and what women like. This approach divides sex into what men like and what women like, enforcing a socially constructed idea of what desire is for people. Because of this, the movie and the marketing for it feel very insincere and misogynistic: a dumbed-down version of a very intricate story made very shallow, fit for women’s viewing. We all have our guilty pleasures, but there is no need to associate them with gender. Otherwise, it creates this perception that any unsophisticated movie will be labeled as a “chick movie”. This ultimately makes the feminine seem less intellectually stimulating.I have to admit that I still had a good time when I was able to not think of it as an adaptation of the book. I went with my flatmates on Valentine’s Day and we had such a good time in the cinema, sharing gasps and laughs with many other friend groups like ours. It’s a bit like watching Twilight. It doesn’t have a lot of substance but it still manages to be entertaining. (Lara Begüm Yener)
There’s been a lot of controversy about the casting of Jacob Elordi, a white Australian, as Heathcliffe in Emerald Fennel’s adaptation of Wuthering Heights, particularly that a white man could portray a character, who although never explicitly stated to be what we in 2026 would call a racial minority, has been deemed by many readers to be one.I fundamentally disagree with the ideas that portraying Heathcliff as a minority increases the literary fidelity of a given adaptation. Brontë’s Heathcliff is described as [excusing the now slurs] a “dark-skinned gipsy”, “Lascar”, or “an American or Spanish castaway”. His racial identity is ambiguous, and I must admit, when I first read the novel, I did not assume him to even be more than a shiftless, wraithlike character. He appears as a “devil” and a “blackguard”, a term with unknown etymology, but no apparent reference to race. The point is Heathcliff is as a character both within the novel, and subtextually, a portrayal of the Other. Thus, to portray him as any one race – and there are arguments that Heathcliff’s racial ambiguity is used to investigate the treatment of the Irish during the 1840s, during the Potato Famine – or even to explore colonial stereotypes and projects that Victorian’s had, all in one novel is what makes it a masterpiece. If you define Heathcliffe’s race monomodally, you also reduce the nebulousness of his gender, and the theme of gender, and the themes of class, both of which Emily Brontë is grappling with in the novel.A corollary to this argument is that Heathcliff as a racialised character, “going from victim to abuser”, is thus adequate representation for racialised people. This is an argument I disagree with. By attempting to sympathise with Heathcliff because of his Otherness, we reduce him from his actual role within the novel, that of a human character. He is both tyrant and victim: there is no transformation from any one singular state to the other, precisely because the novel is a critique of the Enlightenment, through its place within the Romantic canon. It is a brilliant novel as it grapples and diverts the cultural and social practises of its time in such a brilliant way. That is why it’s a classic. To view a gothic text through the lens of likeability or being problematic is emblematic of this media literacy crisis.I am not proposing that Heathcliff must be white, as whiteness is the norm it is not the blank slate upon which the ambiguities of his character are drawn on. Instead, I fundamentally disagree that one can even compress the novel through a visual medium. Any interpretation is not designed to be a slavish reproduction, aiming to capture the essence of the original work of art it is based upon. Instead, the new medium is in itself worthy of standing on its own: one sees the work of the creative team behind the film to explore the film through their individual perspectives.Even from an identitarian perspective, I would not want the only representation of my race to be that of Heathcliff. I am acutely aware of the structural constraints of my life. I am aware that my identity is that of the fifth column. Yet, I would want it to be explored from my own mouth, from my own perspective. Emily Brontë’s mastery and genius is well examined, but both intertextually and meta-textually, Heathcliff is only explored through the voice of the (white) nararator Nelly, or through Brontë herself. I disagree with the assertion that a non-white voice would be better placed, or could do a better job, but racialised people deserve a chance to try (and fail) to create art on their own terms.As a final note, I do not think Fennel’s adaption is good; having seen it, I think it will be viewed in retrospect as the perfect representation of art and its reception in society in the 2020s. The libidinous undercurrents, designed to shock the over-repressed and under-sexed Victorians, have been replaced by their opposite: a sanitised glossing for oversexed and under-repressed generation Z. We witness sex scenes and appropriated kink in lieu of the primordial tension at the heart of the novel, just as we see this within the “Romantasy” genre, or even in shows such as Heated Rivalry. Romance – best enjoyed, best exhibited within the subconscious, expressed as subtext – does not work when tropified and turned into pure graphic excess. To do so, fetishises our own human nature.Perhaps, it will be seen as camp or perhaps, it is a moment of cultural reckoning for Hollywood and film as a medium. Wuthering Heights, the novel, had a mixed, if not negative reaction during its initial release. However, I doubt that the film will receive the same reappraisal. (Mohammad Majlisi)
It is deeply troubling that the drive of Brontë’s Isabella, a survivor of domestic abuse, has been reread to dramatically absolve her abuser. The girl sobbing behind me as the credits rolled attests to the success of this exoneration. Really, she should be crying over the scripting of violent abuse as consensual play. (Anna Drury)
Emily Brontë challenged traditional, narrow Victorian minds with her novel, which is probably why she published it first under a male pseudonym, and it was met with outrage and comments on its ‘vulgar depravity and unnatural horrors.’ But still she did it, and what a feat that was.Although the point of Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights adaptation is certainly more Gothic pleasure than societal commentary, and don’t get me wrong, I love it for that, an understanding of its historic context brings a whole new level of meaning to the story. Fennell cleverly weaves these ideas into her film that you may not have noticed otherwise, from the rich splendour of Cathy’s married life to the dark, brooding world of Heathcliff’s, and I think Emily Brontë would have loved it, really. (Henrietta Easton)
If you want a sleek, hot, stylized thrill ride through the moors, the Robbie and Elordi version that riffs off the director’s vision more than the author’s intent is your Friday night or post-Valentine’s day plan.But if you want to dive a little deeper into the feeling of a love that’s a little more PG-13, even if it’s a little melodramatic, check your old tapes for the Filipino version with the Batanes cliffs.While Hollywood had the budget for glossy aesthetics that provoke and seduce, the scenes in our local “Wuthering Heights” are more grounded—going beyond passion alone, stripping the story down to obsession and its consequences, with unchecked love not portrayed as fantasy, but as ruin. (Lala Singian-Serzo)
Listen, we don’t mind why fans are pulling Wuthering Heights off the shelves and giving it a much-deserved read; we’re just glad that this iconic book is inspiring a whole new group of fans to do wild, mad things for love. (Trent Cannon)
From the cinematography to the costumes and soundtrack, this movie was breathtaking. It checked off everything a BookTok girl could ever want. However, for Brontë readers, the movie might not exactly have lived up to expectations like it did for us who melt for a whimsy storyline. (Rhenna Sexton)
In both the movie and novel, we witness Catherine say how it would degrade her to marry Heathcliff. Her degradation would not have come close to the indignity the source material of Wuthering Heights faced in Fennell’s new adaptation. Characters are mutated to better fit the shape of the whitewashed version of Cathy and Heathcliff’s romance; the most intriguing parts of the novel are replaced with copious amounts of finger sucking, and the themes of Brontë’s original masterpiece are nowhere to be found, or worse, turned on their heads entirely. But, hey, at least Charli XCX sounded great. (Kendall Meachum)
It’s fair to criticize the film for its straying from the source material and rejecting many of the themes that book readers respect about Bronte’s masterpiece. Admittedly, “Wuthering Heights” isn’t a sacred text to me, so I was not as bothered by such a large change. Especially because going into the film, I knew it was going to be different. Fennell was clear from early on that this adaptation of the story was going to diverge substantially from the source material; this is why the title intentionally has quotations. Instead of focusing on the changes, I enjoyed the movie for what it was, a visually striking, toxic romance. I just want to clearly caution that those expecting a strict book adaptation need to know what they are going into and prepare accordingly.I knew I was going to like “Wuthering Heights,” but I didn’t know just how much I was going to love it. More than anything, the film (and its press tour) started to slightly conjure feelings from my “Titanic”-obsessed adolescence, where I watched the film over and over in theaters and devoured anything the actors did to promote the film. Will I watch this film as many times as I did “Titanic?” No, but I will definitely be seeing it again in theaters… and I implore you to see it in theaters as well. The brilliant score, gorgeous cinematography, and Elordi and Robbie’s beautiful faces should be enjoyed on the loudest, crispest screen you can find.
Some critics have been frustrated that the movie doesn’t capture every detail from the novel, and while I may feel the same way, I think that approach seems intentional. Director Emerald Fennell brings a creative twist to the story, focusing more on the emotional interpretation than accuracy. She ties in her creative styles through the modernized wardrobe, passionate scenes and intense colors. This version offers a different perspective that still respects the emotional core of the original.Overall, “Wuthering Heights” is beautifully painful, emotionally intense, symbolic and well worth watching. It may not be a critics favorite, but it has clearly captured countless viewers’ attention. It reflects the devastating heartbreak that has ultimately kept this story alive for nearly 200 years. (Sara Camino)
The cinematography is easily the film’s strongest element. From the delicate candle lighting in the Grange household to the dramatic color shifts that mirror the emotion of each scene, every frame feels intentional. The contrast between the gloomy, off-kilter shots at the Heights and the warmer, more refined symmetrical framing at the Grange visually reinforces the social and emotional divide central to the story.The orchestral score, composed by Anthony Willis, carries much of the film’s emotional weight. Pop artist Charli XCX reinterpreted themes from the score into a companion album that is also incorporated into the film. While her additions are not necessary for the film to succeed musically, they bring a contemporary layer that adds something fresh to Brontë’s classic story. [...]Despite divided reception, the film stands out for its visual ambition and atmospheric execution. It earns a 3.5 out of 5.For viewers drawn to dramatic romance and striking cinematography, “Wuthering Heights” offers a visually immersive experience that is worth seeing on the big screen. (Sawer DeWitt)
As austere as the windy-whipped, fog-choked moors by which they are surrounded, “‘Wuthering Heights’,” does provide some needed comic relief in the form of Isabella. To Oliver’s credit, she steals every single scene in which she appears. It doesn’t matter whether Isabella is fawning over Cathy, destroying the doll she made in Cathy’s likeness, or becoming Heathcliff’s tortured submissive, Oliver rises to the occasion whenever she’s on screen. Elordi, and his hairy, muscular chest are a decent distraction, but not enough to make it worth sitting through two hours and fifteen minutes of Margot Robbie’s scenery chewing (sorry, Margot). The blame falls squarely on Fennell’s shoulders, for whom the third time was definitely not the charm. (Gregg Shapiro)
There is one thing both enjoyers and critics of this movie have notably agreed on: the film itself isn’t objectively bad as a stand-alone. Many suggest it would’ve been much more enjoyable as a “perverse standalone Gothic fever dream”, rather than a poor attempt at interpreting a beloved nearly two-century old novel. Elordi (Heathcliff) has especially been commended for his acting ability, with many expressing disappointment that he had not been given a “better” script.With the release of “Wuthering Heights” (2026), Fennell unintentionally sparked widespread online discussion of art, politics, and the way they’re inevitably intertwined. While looking through the many complex reactions and justified criticism towards this film, one truth becomes inescapable: art directly reflects the society producing it. (Finley Hill)
The cinematography of the film was atmospheric, with the shots panning over the Moors some of the most impressive in the film. The initial montage that shows Cathy’s early days at Thrushcross Grange feels overly-manufactured and out of place, especially when considering the preceding events. Lighting is also used to great effect in furthering the sense of intimacy in some scenes and reflecting the emotional storm brewing between characters in others.At times, the score felt out of place, almost like a music video, notably during Charli xcx’s ‘House’ and ‘Wall of Sound.’ However, Olivia Chaney’s ‘Dark Eyed Sailor’ and most of Charli xcx’s other contributions are effective in adding to the emotion of the scene.“Wuthering Heights” is a visually impressive film with quality performances, but lacks emotional depth and complex characters. The dependency on overt sex scenes to shock and distract from what is a lacklustre film does not go unnoticed, as its marketing as an intense, erotic adaptation is not quite realised.Even when viewing the film in isolation and disregarding the novel, it feels superficial and unentertaining. The novel and this ‘version’ should be viewed as two entirely separate entities, but I fear the novel may be overshadowed by this adaptation for those who have not read the book. (Erin O’Connor)
Margot Robbie embodies Catherine’s spirit, but is almost mechanical in her responses to Heathcliff’s provocations. Though it is meant to be sexual and thrilling, it achieves it performatively, rather than authentically. (Kaveree Bamzai)
If there are redeeming qualities, they lie in the film’s technical craftsmanship. The cinematography is undeniably beautiful. The moors are captured in sweeping, windswept frames that feel vast and unforgiving. Candlelit interiors glow with painterly composition. Visually, it’s a feast.The score is equally strong. It swells and aches with emotion that the dialogue often fails to deliver. There are moments where the music nearly convinces you that the tragedy is landing, even when the performances do not.In the end, this “Wuthering Heights” feels like a case of style overpowering substance. It looks stunning. It sounds stirring. But its central relationship, the very heart of the story, lacks the complexity and authenticity needed to make it resonate.Instead of leaving haunted by their love, I left relieved it was over. (Andrew McManus)
For such a boisterous, visually breathtaking movie, the resulting story feels pretty one-dimensional. When the director favours cheap tricks to shock the audience over thoughtful narrative development, refusing to flesh out her protagonists, a timeless classic is reduced to a gimmick. This doesn’t seem to have put viewers off. The film earned over $83m (£61m) in its opening weekend. If you’re still thinking of buying tickets, I sincerely recommend that you pick up a copy of the book instead. Or perhaps take a trip to Haworth, to experience the magic of Brontë’s beloved moors for yourself. Then, if you’re still dissatisfied, watch the film. (Tilda Gladwell)
The choice to spend half the movie’s runtime before Heathcliff’s return hurts the pacing. Spending more time on Cathy and Heathcliff’s relationship falling apart and adding more nuance to their characters would have gone a long way in making the ending less saccharine. The end of a great love story is something to be mourned, yet I felt relief when the credits started rolling.There are a few things I’ve learned recently that have made this movie make more sense. One is that there appears to be a rise in people reading smut -- I’m not here to judge; more power to them. The other is that Fennell’s last movie was very popular on TikTok.That’s all to say that this film will likely find its audience in an unconventional place. Maybe Emerald Fennell is farther ahead in the film game than people realize, and she’s future-proofing her work for a new generation. Either way, people who want a great romance story with deep characters will likely have to look elsewhere. (Ulises Duenas)
All in all, as you can tell, I did not enjoy the film. I am still shocked about what Fennell did to this beloved classic, and as someone who is very fond of the Brontë sisters, this was an offensive film to Emily Brontë.I hope Emerald Fennel never has the idea to adapt Jane Eyre into film, or if she does, she should at least read the book again after reading it at the age of 13. (Chelsea Dalscheid)
Entire droves of characters that were integral to the novel were erased, relationships were simplified, and the remaining characters were molded like taffy into flattened versions of themselves that were more palatable to a modern obsession with graphic romance. An example is Isabella in the movie, her portrayal is tone deaf. Instead of being a figure that silently empowers women of the time by escaping Heathcliff, who abused her emotionally and physically, she is made to act like a dog in the movie (in reference to her dog that Heathcliff kills in the book), and is a willing participant in his abuses. The entire second half of the novel is missing in the adaptation, where Catherine’s haunting of Heathcliff leads to his descent into madness. Fennell’s decision to end the narrative halfway further speaks to her infatuation with the love story, not what the relationship actually meant between the two characters. By doing this, she strips what makes this novel a Gothic classic. (Zaccary Kimes & Mia Strand)
Not once was I moved, transported, enthralled, what have you. “Wuthering Heights” is a really boring movie made by someone who never would’ve gotten a job in Hollywood 20 years ago. Standards were higher than. Now, most movies look like the trailers at the top of Tropic Thunder, even the Oscar nominees. I’m ready to send in the robots. There’s no way they’ll come up with a worse Wuthering Heights than this one. (Nicky Otis Smith)
Songs like Always Everywhere, which blur the line between classical and electronic textures, offer a Pachabel’s Canon-style comedown for the party generation, while bombastic lead-off single Chains of Love will put to rest any questions about the absence of a Kate Bush cover. New and fresh yet unmistakably written by one of the voices of her generation, it’s a collection that shows an uncompromising artist more plugged in than ever. (Jonathan Seidler)
%20(1).v1.jpg)
